Kidd v. Shepherd

4 Mass. 238
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1808
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 4 Mass. 238 (Kidd v. Shepherd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kidd v. Shepherd, 4 Mass. 238 (Mass. 1808).

Opinion

And now at this term the opinion of the Court was delivered by

Parsons, C. J.

After a verdict in this cause for the plaintiff, the defendant moved to stay judgment, because after the plea pleaded and issue joined, and during the term in which the cause was tried, before the verdict, the goods, effects, and credits, of the plaintiff were attached in his hands as trustee of the plaintiff in several suits commenced against him by his creditors.

We are all of opinion that the motion ought not to be granted. These attachments are made pursuant to the statute of 1794, c. 65, providing a remedy for creditors, whose debtors have intrusted and deposited their goods, effects, and credits, in the hands of others, so that they cannot be attached by the ordinary legal process. When a creditor has sued his debtor, and is endeavoring by compulsory process to recover from his hands his effects and credits, it is hardly to be conceived that it was the intention of the statute to consider those effects and credits as a trust and deposit, to be attached by a process by which the creditor is to be delayed or defeated in his action. But we do not decide on this point; because the statute provides that the goods, effects, and credits, when thus attached, shall stand bound to satisfy the judgment of the attaching creditor; and * when appropriated for that purpose, the [ * 239 ] trustee may defend himself at law against the principal: it is therefore manifest that the effects must be attached under such circumstances as will enable the trustee to plead the attachment in bar of the action of the principal, so that he may defend himself at law, and not to rely on a relief to be granted by the judge at his discretion.

In this case, the attachment was made after plea pleaded and issue joined, and the motion is made after verdict. The trustee cannot therefore defend himself against a recovery by his principal, by the trial of any issue in fact or in law, on any plea which he has opportunity to plead. The attachment is therefore void, and judgment cannot be stayed. The principles of this decision were fully considered and settled in the case of Howell vs. Frye, trustee of Freeman, in Cumberland.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Thayer v. Pratt
47 N.H. 470 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1867)
Williams v. Boardman
91 Mass. 570 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1865)
Foster v. Dudley
30 N.H. 463 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1855)
Miller v. Taylor
14 Tex. 538 (Texas Supreme Court, 1855)
Trowbridge & Jennings v. Means
5 Ark. 135 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1843)
Burnham v. Folsom
5 N.H. 566 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1832)
Thorndike v. De Wolf
23 Mass. 120 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1828)
Williams v. Marston
20 Mass. 65 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1825)
Howell v. Freeman
3 Mass. 121 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1807)
Sharp v. Clark
2 Mass. 91 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1806)
Eunson v. Healy
2 Mass. 32 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1806)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Mass. 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kidd-v-shepherd-mass-1808.